What was God thinking? Anyone?

[Madrigalian]

This is a very simple question regarding biblical scripture. I am hoping that one of our resident bible thumpers here can come up with a suitable answer to the question of; What was God thinking?

Starting off and keeping it simple I will begin with a specific set of passages;

Deuteronomy; chapter 22 verse 13-21


13: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14: And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17: And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18: And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19: And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the ***** in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.


For those of you who may be unfamiliar with tradition and ceremony of the times, it was customary for the father and mother of the bride to be present during a newly married couple's consummation, or I should say at least in the next room. The passage above and "tokens of virginity" refers to the vaginal bleeding that accompanies the breaking of a virgin's hymen during intercourse. When the hymen is broken/torn for the first time during a woman's first intercourse she bleeds, leaving the evidence of her virginity upon the marriage cloth/bed to show as evidence of her previous maidenhood. Once consummation was completed, it was customary for the father to gather up the bed sheets and keep them as evidence for the future against the husband claiming to have married an "unclean" wife.

All well and good. But here comes the point of consternation...

A woman's hymen is an extrememly fragile thing and not all women are born with the same hymen. For instance, it is a scientifically proven fact that some women's hymen is already open or torn at birth, having already been streached to breaking while still in the womb. A woman's hymen can be torn or broken while running, exorcising, working, stretching, falling down, or any number of activities not related to intercourse. Some women's hymens can be very thick and bleed profusely once torn in intercourse, while others can be very thin membranes, perhaps with already existing minor tears, that barely bleed at all when broken, leaving no visible evidence of their breakage. While still others, believe it or not, can be so elastic or stretchable as to actually survive first intercourse and remain intact.

So... again, my question; What was God thinking?

When God put this law into the old testament; Stating that men should stone a woman to death for the offense of not being able to provide verifiable evidence of her virginity on her wedding bed, was he somehow unaware of the nature and physiology of a woman's hymen?

Is God so ignorant of a woman's physiology that he perhaps did not know that not all virgin women will bleed sufficiently (or even at all) to provide "token" evidence of her maidenhood? Perhaps he forgot? Perhaps he didn't care? Figuring that only a small percentage of women might be stoned to death unjustly for the crime of having been physically active as a child.

One of my seminary instructors once told me that it was customary for either the father or the mother to hide blood somewhere on themselves, only a very small amount, in order to sneak into the bed chamber soon after that first intercourse in order to "doctor" the sheets if necessary so that a husband might have no cause to "hate" his new wife. Did they know something that God didn't?

Like the fact that not all virgins bleed and particularly not in quantities sufficient to provide evidence of virginity or even that such evidence could have long been lost due to innocent activities that have nothing to do with ones virginity.

And why, by the grace of God, would God then instruct the reader of his word to base the decision of whether or not a young woman should be stoned to death, for failing to please her husband's desire to reap upon an unplowed field, (certainally a death deserving offense to be sure) on whether or not such evidence was or wasn't available?

Anyone? :confused:

[Alvin T. Grey]

You're expecting logic from the creator of the Platypus?

Good luck with that.

[IllusionFree]

The answer is simple, religion conforms to the society of its time. The religions of the world now are not the same as then, infact there not even the same as 100 years ago lol. They change with society in order to survive.

So your view on the matter isnt the same as you would only understand that as being logically correct only if you existed in that society.

and as such peoples views on god change with society....and religion.

[Madrigalian]

The answer is simple, religion conforms to the society of its time. The religions of the world now are not the same as then, infact there not even the same as 100 years ago lol. They change with society in order to survive.

So your view on the matter isnt the same as you would only understand that as being logically correct only if you existed in that society.

and as such peoples views on god change with society....and religion.


Alright. Then you'd say that the passages above taken from Deuteronomy are not in fact the "Word of God" but instead the "logical understandings of society at the time", written into a book of laws devised soley by men lacking a fundimental understanding of female physiology? Because I was under the impression that the Bible was the true Word of God, not the word of ignorant men who thought they spoke for God.

If the passages do indeed reflect only the ignorance of biblical times then this would explain everything and demonstrate a fundimental flaw in the argument that the Bible is the word of an omnipowerful and supremely knowledgable God. If on the other hand, the Bible is the Word of God, as many proclaim, then this again leaves us with the question of; What was God thinking?

[Alvin T. Grey]

What was God thinking?

He was thinking 'Why the HE-Double Hockysticks did I create the Platypus. What was I smoking?' - Hence the distraction, and the inherrent flaw in the above text.

He sorted it out in the New testement though.

[IllusionFree]

if you have to ask what was god thinking, perhaps you should be asking who wrote the text that you think is from god, and how many times it has been translated, in how many different languages. And yes religion changes over time, take the catholic religion for example... study if from 400 years ago and study the modern version..

LOL,
Religion is like a software program.. when it gets boring or unbelievable it gets an upgrade or a bug fix.

God is Logic, If it does not seem logical then it most likely wasnt so.


The bible is controversial itself because so much of it is Symbolic and Some of it is literal, this is why there are so many different doctrines of churches. You just never know what could be symbolic or could be literal.....

PS.
In any case, I wouldnt advise questioning gods thinking.. He is your judge.. you are not his. EDIT: For except you are not questioning gods thinking, you are questioning a few words jotted down by a man a few thousand years ago..

You must first determine if that text is from god and provide proof please.

[Madrigalian]

He was thinking 'Why the HE-Double Hockysticks did I create the Platypus. What was I smoking?' - Hence the distraction, and the inherrent flaw in the above text.

He sorted it out in the New testement though.


Why thank you Sir Alvin. That explains everthing. :D

[Madrigalian]

LOL,
Religion is like a software program.. when it gets boring or unbelievable it gets an upgrade or a bug fix.



Does God write code too?? :eek:

/em pulls out his C++ manual in search of the hidden gospels...

[IllusionFree]

Does God write code too??

Why god is the master programmer :)

The problem is CHOICE.

Welcome to the matrix.

[neo of the mind]

"one of our resident bible thumpers here can come up with a suitable answer to the question of"

- I will certainly give a resident "person of nothing" an answer. I of course will not be surprised that you will find it lacking in some way due to the fact that it won't fit you agenda.

"For those of you who may be unfamiliar with tradition and ceremony of the times"

-I'm unfamiliar with that being the case in that time and that society, why don't you show some evidence of that.

I will counter your assertion and answer your question with the following:

http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=963
http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5764/kiTeitse.html

[neo of the mind]

You're expecting logic from the creator of the Platypus?

Good luck with that.

What life forms have you created from nothing Mr. "I'm smarter than God"?

Your comments exhibit the most foolish form of arrogance.

[Alvin T. Grey]

What life forms have you created from nothing Mr. "I'm smarter than God"?

Your comments exhibit the most foolish form of arrogance.
Ever? or just since we've been talking?

[Dangerrmouse]

Careful Alvin, he's got a great big ................ God on his side!

[Madrigalian]

"one of our resident bible thumpers here can come up with a suitable answer to the question of"

- I will certainly give a resident "person of nothing" an answer. I of course will not be surprised that you will find it lacking in some way due to the fact that it won't fit you agenda.

Person of nothing? My, I must have hit a nerve. I assure you that my rejection of the bible is hardly indicative of any lack of spiritual beliefs in general. But I am familiar with the Christian dogma that relates a lack of Christian belief with a lack of worthy substance. It makes christians feel better to believe that all other schools of belief are worth "nothing", lest they know gnawing guilt for summarily rejecting everything else out of hand.

Still, in your defense I will acknowledge that this is a trait shared by all three religions of Abraham, and their followers, and Christians should not be singled out entirely in this regard.

"For those of you who may be unfamiliar with tradition and ceremony of the times"

-I'm unfamiliar with that being the case in that time and that society, why don't you show some evidence of that.

Well, I would have to return to seminary to find the materials and studies we covered. And since that's not going to happen and I am not interested in searching the internet for some obscure reference to link for this discussion, I'll simply say that it was covered in my studies and you are of course free to disagree with my recollection.

I will counter your assertion and answer your question with the following:

http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=963
http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5764/kiTeitse.html


So your explaination is that the above passages were, in part and only in part, figurative speech? An alagory not meant to be taken literally. To spead the cloth and present tokens of a woman's virginity means in actuality to present character witnesses to attest to a woman's virginity?

So, the husband says; "She's a slut."
And the Father, Mother, Brother, best friend says; "She's as pure as the driven snow."
And then the Elders decide whether or not they believe the character witnesses and make the husband pay the father in silver or otherwise believe the husband and have her stoned to death. Kind of a; he said, she said death trial... mandated by God... to make sure women are and remain "clean" for their husbands.

That it?

[neo of the mind]

Careful Alvin, he's got a great big ................ God on his side!

Yes and you have nothing.

[neo of the mind]

Person of nothing? My, I must have hit a nerve. I assure you that my rejection of the bible is hardly indicative of any lack of spiritual beliefs in general. But I am familiar with the Christian dogma that relates a lack of Christian belief with a lack of worthy substance. It makes christians feel better to believe that all other schools of belief are worth "nothing", lest they know gnawing guilt for summarily rejecting everything else out of hand.

Still, in your defense I will acknowledge that this is a trait shared by all three religions of Abraham, and their followers, and Christians should not be singled out entirely in this regard.

- oops, my bad, I was calling you a "person of nothing" as a nickname for an atheist as you call Christians Biblethumpers. Since people like to call Christians names that is apparently what they want returned back to them. You on the other hand are not an atheist, well, I don't know exactly what you are, some kind of belief in aliens right? You can explain/clear that up what it is if you want to or not as far as all that other rambling, your wrong.

Well, I would have to return to seminary to find the materials and studies we covered. And since that's not going to happen and I am not interested in searching the internet for some obscure reference to link for this discussion, I'll simply say that it was covered in my studies and you are of course free to disagree with my recollection.

-How convenient.


So your explaination is that the above passages were, in part and only in part, figurative speech? An alagory not meant to be taken literally. To spead the cloth and present tokens of a woman's virginity means in actuality to present character witnesses to attest to a woman's virginity?

-yeah, there are figures of speech in the Hebrew, but you would know that if you went to seminary. Then again, I can't assume that your reference to seminary, was a Christian one, it could mean anything.

So, the husband says; "She's a slut."
And the Father, Mother, Brother, best friend says; "She's as pure as the driven snow."
And then the Elders decide whether or not they believe the character witnesses and make the husband pay the father in silver or otherwise believe the husband and have her stoned to death. Kind of a; he said, she said death trial... mandated by God... to make sure women are and remain "clean" for their husbands.

That it?

-You coudn't just leave it at your first explanation could you? You had to take that very same explanation, twist it and make it seem absurd to discredit it. Is that going to be your response to everything that refutes your agenda?

[Alvin T. Grey]

Yes and you have nothing.
I got the Great Sky Hamster.
So tell me? does a sock puppet count? - I made one of those once.

[neo of the mind]

I got the Great Sky Hamster.
So tell me? does a sock puppet count? - I made one of those once.

How sad. Good luck with that.

[Alvin T. Grey]

I had good luck with that. Many happy years...But then I went into the army...Socky went into marketing, and we grew apart.

God is on God's side. Not yours, not mine, not anyones.

[neo of the mind]

I had good luck with that. Many happy years...But then I went into the army...Socky went into marketing, and we grew apart.

God is on God's side. Not yours, not mine, not anyones.

Sorry to hear about Socky. Maybe you should make another one.

Your correct, God is not on my side, but I am on his. Who's side are you on?
Oh, that's right, your just on your side. I'll take my chances with the team I am on, the benefits are amazing.

[Dangerrmouse]

What are the benefits of an imaginary father figure whose imaginary boots you are unfit to lick?

[neo of the mind]

What are the benefits of an imaginary father figure whose imaginary boots you are unfit to lick?


For something you consider so imaginary, why would you presume I am unfit?

Be as it may, you are correct, I am so unfit to even think about coming towards God. His holiness is beyond comprehension. That being said, I have a mediator between me and God, through his son, Jesus Christ. I am so blessed.

Do you really want me to explain the benefits to you? Be honest now.

[sub_zer0]

I had good luck with that. Many happy years...But then I went into the army...Socky went into marketing, and we grew apart.

God is on God's side. Not yours, not mine, not anyones.

I guess you missed this part:

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "

It is up to us to accept or not.

[Dangerrmouse]

Do you really want me to explain the benefits to you? Be honest now.

Did I ask you to explain them?

[Alvin T. Grey]

Sorry to hear about Socky. Maybe you should make another one.
I could immitate, I could never replace. :(

Your correct, God is not on my side, but I am on his. Who's side are you on?
Oh, that's right, your just on your side. I'll take my chances with the team I am on, the benefits are amazing.
I am on my side, and I hope that it is the side that God is on too. But I would never presume that I chose correctly.
I never assume that I am right about everything. I am always searching.

[Alvin T. Grey]

I guess you missed this part:

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "

It is up to us to accept or not.
Is that God? - or Jesus?
Just who is the 'Him' we are talking about in that passage?

[sub_zer0]

Is that God? - or Jesus?
Just who is the 'Him' we are talking about in that passage?

Both.

God = Father, Son, Holy Spirit

[Alvin T. Grey]

Did I ask you to explain them?
Yup you did. But to answer the question. It starts with Dental, and there is a Kickarse pension plan. ;)

[Alvin T. Grey]

Both.

God = Father, Son, Holy Spirit
That would be 'All three'. Not both. - Kind of like a shamrock.

[sub_zer0]

That would be 'All three'. Not both. - Kind of like a shamrock.

No, God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus (Son) is God.
Father is God.
Holy Spirit is God.

All unique but of one God. You asked if it is Jesus or God speaking, since Jesus is God, it is both Jesus and God speaking.

[Alvin T. Grey]

No, God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus (Son) is God.
Father is God.
Holy Spirit is God.

I thought that the leaf was split three ways, but still the same plant...there you go.

All unique but of one God. You asked if it is Jesus or God speaking, since Jesus is God, it is both Jesus and God speaking.
But all of the prophets said that. From Moses to Mohammed. So who do we believe? the original or the upgrade?
Or what God shows us personally?

[Dangerrmouse]

No, God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus (Son) is God.
Father is God.
Holy Spirit is God.

All unique but of one God. You asked if it is Jesus or God speaking, since Jesus is God, it is both Jesus and God speaking.

So is the holy spirit the silent partner in the deal? Is he/she/it moot?

[neo of the mind]

Did I ask you to explain them?

"What are the benefits of an imaginary father figure whose imaginary boots you are unfit to lick?"

Yes, you did. See that question mark at the end, that's where you conveyed to me a request for an explanation.

Honesty is not your strong point.

[sub_zer0]

So is the holy spirit the silent partner in the deal? Is he/she/it moot?

Within the specific question you asked, yes. You just asked if it was Jesus or God, it is both. Jesus is indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God.

But all of the prophets said that. From Moses to Mohammed. So who do we believe? the original or the upgrade?
Or what God shows us personally?

Wrong, not all prophets said that nor taught that. Just believe the Holy Bible is all.

[serenity]

The bible is controversial itself because so much of it is Symbolic and Some of it is literal, this is why there are so many different doctrines of churches. You just never know what could be symbolic or could be literal.....

PS.
In any case, I wouldnt advise questioning gods thinking.. He is your judge.. you are not his. EDIT: For except you are not questioning gods thinking, you are questioning a few words jotted down by a man a few thousand years ago..

You must first determine if that text is from god and provide proof please.


Please! Madrigalian offerred a perfectly legitimate question, and you just flatly refuse to answer.

Let's summarize your "response":

We just can't know what is symbolic or literal. (Even as you cling to the literalist perspective...all the while openly admitting that some of the Bible is not literal).

Then, you admonish Marigalian for "questioning God's thinking", when in fact his tacit premise--which you simultaneously agree with and not, in a breathtaking feat of intellectual acrobatics--is that an all-knowing God could obviously have not come up with the ridiculous "virgin" ideas, that are objectively problematic (to put it mildly)...as Madrigalian has shown very clearly.

[neo of the mind]

Please! Madrigalian offerred a perfectly legitimate question, and you just flatly refuse to answer.

Let's summarize your "response":

We just can't know what is symbolic or literal. (Even as you cling to the literalist perspective...all the while openly admitting that some of the Bible is not literal).

Then, you admonish Marigalian for "questioning God's thinking", when in fact his tacit premise--which you simultaneously agree with and not, in a breathtaking feat of intellectual acrobatics--is that an all-knowing God could obviously have not come up with the ridiculous "virgin" ideas, that are objectively problematic (to put it mildly)...as Madrigalian has shown very clearly.


and I gave a perfectly legitimate answer in post #10 but the non-Bible believers just flatly refuse to accept it. Why? Because their understanding of scripture is flawed and the logic they use to discredit the Bible is flawed. They will always refuse an answer that shows they are wrong.

[Ethos]

Obviously we have two possibilities.

1. The Bible is not the literal Word of God.
2. The Bible, and by extension God, is not infallible.

Pick one.

Ethos

[KatsuhikoJinnai]

This is a very simple question regarding biblical scripture. I am hoping that one of our resident bible thumpers here can come up with a suitable answer to the question of; What was God thinking?

Starting off and keeping it simple I will begin with a specific set of passages;

Deuteronomy; chapter 22 verse 13-21




For those of you who may be unfamiliar with tradition and ceremony of the times, it was customary for the father and mother of the bride to be present during a newly married couple's consummation, or I should say at least in the next room. The passage above and "tokens of virginity" refers to the vaginal bleeding that accompanies the breaking of a virgin's hymen during intercourse. When the hymen is broken/torn for the first time during a woman's first intercourse she bleeds, leaving the evidence of her virginity upon the marriage cloth/bed to show as evidence of her previous maidenhood. Once consummation was completed, it was customary for the father to gather up the bed sheets and keep them as evidence for the future against the husband claiming to have married an "unclean" wife.

All well and good. But here comes the point of consternation...

A woman's hymen is an extrememly fragile thing and not all women are born with the same hymen. For instance, it is a scientifically proven fact that some women's hymen is already open or torn at birth, having already been streached to breaking while still in the womb. A woman's hymen can be torn or broken while running, exorcising, working, stretching, falling down, or any number of activities not related to intercourse. Some women's hymens can be very thick and bleed profusely once torn in intercourse, while others can be very thin membranes, perhaps with already existing minor tears, that barely bleed at all when broken, leaving no visible evidence of their breakage. While still others, believe it or not, can be so elastic or stretchable as to actually survive first intercourse and remain intact.

So... again, my question; What was God thinking?

When God put this law into the old testament; Stating that men should stone a woman to death for the offense of not being able to provide verifiable evidence of her virginity on her wedding bed, was he somehow unaware of the nature and physiology of a woman's hymen?

Is God so ignorant of a woman's physiology that he perhaps did not know that not all virgin women will bleed sufficiently (or even at all) to provide "token" evidence of her maidenhood? Perhaps he forgot? Perhaps he didn't care? Figuring that only a small percentage of women might be stoned to death unjustly for the crime of having been physically active as a child.

One of my seminary instructors once told me that it was customary for either the father or the mother to hide blood somewhere on themselves, only a very small amount, in order to sneak into the bed chamber soon after that first intercourse in order to "doctor" the sheets if necessary so that a husband might have no cause to "hate" his new wife. Did they know something that God didn't?

Like the fact that not all virgins bleed and particularly not in quantities sufficient to provide evidence of virginity or even that such evidence could have long been lost due to innocent activities that have nothing to do with ones virginity.

And why, by the grace of God, would God then instruct the reader of his word to base the decision of whether or not a young woman should be stoned to death, for failing to please her husband's desire to reap upon an unplowed field, (certainally a death deserving offense to be sure) on whether or not such evidence was or wasn't available?

Anyone? :confused:

The answer to this is astoundingly easy.

God is God. He could have simply ensured that all virgins maintained a hymen that bled upon having sexual intercourse for the first time.

Realizing that this particularly Old Testament law would not extend into the modern day (and it doesn't), God may have ceased to supernaturally ensure that all virgins maintained a hymen that bled within recent human history.

"Bible thumper" is a bigoted derogatory term (particularly within the context that you used it), and should not be used on a board that values civility, like the admirable Whistlestopper typically does.

[KatsuhikoJinnai]

Obviously we have two possibilities.

1. The Bible is not the literal Word of God.
2. The Bible, and by extension God, is not infallible.

Pick one.

Ethos

No, we have more possibilities than that... such as thinking outside the box.

[KatsuhikoJinnai]

Please! Madrigalian offerred a perfectly legitimate question, and you just flatly refuse to answer.

Let's summarize your "response":

We just can't know what is symbolic or literal. (Even as you cling to the literalist perspective...all the while openly admitting that some of the Bible is not literal).

Then, you admonish Marigalian for "questioning God's thinking", when in fact his tacit premise--which you simultaneously agree with and not, in a breathtaking feat of intellectual acrobatics--is that an all-knowing God could obviously have not come up with the ridiculous "virgin" ideas, that are objectively problematic (to put it mildly)...as Madrigalian has shown very clearly.

They're not rediculious ideas whatsoever. Given the high degree of pleasurability of sex, they're to ensure that we do not become sexually promiscuous, which is not good for the human body, spirit, and soul. Strongly promoting, and yes within the Hebrew/Jewish community enforcing, being sexually chaste before marriage naturally discourges sexual promiscuity. It offers a strong incentive to maintain a sexually responsible lifestyle given that sex is exceedingly pleasurable.

Why aren't you correcting Marigalian for his offensive use of the term "Bible thumper", Serenity?

You are usually more even-handed, and fair, than this.

[serenity]

Originally Posted by serenity
Please! Madrigalian offerred a perfectly legitimate question, and you just flatly refuse to answer.

Let's summarize your "response":

We just can't know what is symbolic or literal. (Even as you cling to the literalist perspective...all the while openly admitting that some of the Bible is not literal).

Then, you admonish Marigalian for "questioning God's thinking", when in fact his tacit premise--which you simultaneously agree with and not, in a breathtaking feat of intellectual acrobatics--is that an all-knowing God could obviously have not come up with the ridiculous "virgin" ideas, that are objectively problematic (to put it mildly)...as Madrigalian has shown very clearly.



posted by sub zero
and I gave a perfectly legitimate answer in post #10 but the non-Bible believers just flatly refuse to accept it. Why? Because their understanding of scripture is flawed and the logic they use to discredit the Bible is flawed. They will always refuse an answer that shows they are wrong.

Since you didn't give an answer at all--to my main point, which came AFTER your response to a SEPARATE issue--I don't see how you can contend, with a straight face, that your answer is "legitimate" in regards to the issue I raise (or rather, re-raise, in deference to Madrigalian's fine post).

The links you provide are about the disputation of whether or not such an act was Custom.

Not my point at all, as you'd know if you read my post--which you didn't.

My point, as yet unanswered, is that Illusion Free's response is a poor one: he claims that some of the Bible is NOT to be taken literally (which agrees with the first piece you link us to), but that we cannot know which is literal and which is symbolic (which disagrees with your link, incidentally).

then he goes on to admonish Madrigalian for "questioning" God--even though, according to the links you have provided, such was NOT God's word (unless God is ignorant), but is rather symbolic.

You guys are--presumably consciously--trying to sow confusion in order to protect an on-again/off-again literalist reading of Scripture.

Unfortunately, we're not all stupid and easily deluded, so we can see through this.

[Ethos]

No, we have more possibilities than that... such as thinking outside the box.

The Literal Word does not allow such extramural considerations. Your explanation below is a gloriously imaginative theory, however the implication would be an alteration of the Word of God as recorded in the Bible, the consequence of which is removing the infallibility of the Bible itself.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

The Literal Word does not allow such extramural considerations. Your explanation below is a gloriously imaginative theory, however the implication would be an alteration of the Word of God as recorded in the Bible, the consequence of which is removing the infallibility of the Bible itself.

Ethos


The Bible contains the words of God. Some of the Bible is literal and some of it has figures of speech in them, distinct to the Hebrew and Greek languages.
That is a fact. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Here is a place for people to start that can't understand this concept.
http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/bullinger/app6.html
http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/bullinger/FiguresOfSpeech.html

[neo of the mind]

"posted by sub zero
and I gave a perfectly legitimate answer in post #10 but the non-Bible believers just flatly refuse to accept it. Why? Because their understanding of scripture is flawed and the logic they use to discredit the Bible is flawed. They will always refuse an answer that shows they are wrong."

serenity,

You obviously didn't read my post or you would not have written that it was posted by sub zero.

I answered Madrigalian question in post#10 and your post was specifically about why his question wasn't answered. Stop lying.

[Ethos]

The Bible contains the words of God. Some of the Bible is literal and some of it has figures of speech in them, distinct to the Hebrew and Greek languages.
That is a fact. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It is not hard at all. You are, in fact, aligning yourself with option 1 below.

Apologetics research not withstanding, you are not able to claim two contradictory notions as one coherent standard. Either the Bible is wholly the Literal Word of God, or it is not. I have not one problem with accepting a scripture containing truths and fictions, inspired by the divine, and containing truthful words from a Creator. This does not translate into an infallible text.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

It is not hard at all. You are, in fact, aligning yourself with option 1 below.

Apologetics research not withstanding, you are not able to claim two contradictory notions as one coherent standard. Either the Bible is wholly the Literal Word of God, or it is not. I have not one problem with accepting a scripture containing truths and fictions, inspired by the divine, and containing truthful words from a Creator. This does not translate into an infallible text.

Ethos


It is the literal word of God, what I am saying though is that when READING the Bible, most of it should be read literal BUT there are parts that are not literal BUT are figures of speech. That is what some people are confused about. If you say you are not, fine, but other's comments on here show that they are ignorant of this or are ignoring this fact on purpose.

[Ethos]

It is the literal word of God, what I am saying though is that when READING the Bible, most of it should be read literal BUT there are parts that are not literal BUT are figures of speech. That is what some people are confused about. If you say you are not, fine, but other's comments on here show that they are ignorant of this or are ignoring this fact on purpose.

Who decides what is read literally and what is not?

This seems to be a point of confusion, even for your side in the debate. Understand that you can attempt to answer the question, but there may never be a definitive conclusion and concensus.

Those of us who are critical of the Bible's message, as espoused by numerous fundamentalists, do so on the grounds that what is to be taken "literally" and what is to be taken "figuratively" are fluid and often based on circumstance or convenience.

Example: Apparent Biblical contradiction presents itself - should be taken figuratively, not literally. Etc.

Ethos

[FlyingGuineapig]

Who decides what is read literally and what is not?

This seems to be a point of confusion, even for your side in the debate. Understand that you can attempt to answer the question, but there may never be a definitive conclusion and concensus.

Those of us who are critical of the Bible's message, as espoused by numerous fundamentalists, do so on the grounds that what is to be taken "literally" and what is to be taken "figuratively" are fluid and often based on circumstance or convenience.

Example: Apparent Biblical contradiction presents itself - should be taken figuratively, not literally. Etc.

Ethos
Yeah, good summary of the issues w/ taking the Bible literally.

You can see sub_zer0 stumble against this during this thread
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46653
where in post #1, he starts out by saying that Christ teaches a literal reading of Genesis, but by post #58, now sub_zer0 says Jesus is talking symbolically about creation, not literarlly. But then in post #70, he's back to literal.

[neo of the mind]

Who decides what is read literally and what is not?

This seems to be a point of confusion, even for your side in the debate. Understand that you can attempt to answer the question, but there may never be a definitive conclusion and concensus.

Those of us who are critical of the Bible's message, as espoused by numerous fundamentalists, do so on the grounds that what is to be taken "literally" and what is to be taken "figuratively" are fluid and often based on circumstance or convenience.

Example: Apparent Biblical contradiction presents itself - should be taken figuratively, not literally. Etc.

Ethos

I gave links showing E.W. Bullinger's work on the subject. I can't help how other people interpret the Bible, including those that don't believe it to be the truth.

I go under the simple premise that I and nobody else can fully understand everything about the Bible, that my understanding of what is logical or fair or righteous is less than God's understanding.

I consider anything in the Bible that I don't think is fair or a contradiction in my mind, is due to my limitations and usually, the answer is found in another area of the Bible that explains it and shows why it is fair and not a contradiction. That being said, not everything can be explained, nor should it, and that is where faith comes in.

[neo of the mind]

Yeah, good summary of the issues w/ taking the Bible literally.

You can see sub_zer0 stumble against this during this thread
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46653
where in post #1, he starts out by saying that Christ teaches a literal reading of Genesis, but by post #58, now sub_zer0 says Jesus is talking symbolically about creation, not literarlly. But then in post #70, he's back to literal.

Hence my post #46.

[Ethos]

I gave links showing E.W. Bullinger's work on the subject. I can't help how other people interpret the Bible, including those that don't believe it to be the truth.

I go under the simple premise that I and nobody else can fully understand everything about the Bible, that my understanding of what is logical or fair or righteous is less than God's understanding.

I consider anything in the Bible that I don't think is fair or a contradiction in my mind, is due to my limitations and usually, the answer is found in another area of the Bible that explains it and shows why it is fair and not a contradiction. That being said, not everything can be explained, not should it, and that is where faith comes in.

I give you points for consistency.

Ethos

[FlyingGuineapig]

You can see sub_zer0 stumble against this during this thread
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum...ead.php?t=46653
where in post #1, he starts out by saying that Christ teaches a literal reading of Genesis, but by post #58, now sub_zer0 says Jesus is talking symbolically about creation, not literarlly. But then in post #70, he's back to literal.


Hence my post #46. (which I'll add here: It is the literal word of God, what I am saying though is that when READING the Bible, most of it should be read literal BUT there are parts that are not literal BUT are figures of speech. That is what some people are confused about. If you say you are not, fine, but other's comments on here show that they are ignorant of this or are ignoring this fact on purpose)

Sure - and some folks will chime in that Jesus always says when he's speaking in parables (which He doesn't - for example, the case in Genesis - Jesus doesn't explicitly to take it symbolically, but I don't think there's much confusion (except perhaps to sub_zer0) that He intends it as such. Read in context, Jesus's real point (at least as I take) has to do with the sanctity of marriage, not that we should read Genesis literally.

Cedars had a great post a few months back about how the Bible is a collection of works - poetry, stories, laws, prophecies, etc (I wish I could find it, but didn't have much luck searching for it). When God speaks, it's with many different voices, because different people respond better to different means of teachings.

It often seems like a lot of Christianity has gotten far too focused on the literal words than the underlying message.

Likewise, playing whack-a-mole with the consistency of select passages has been a game played for the past 2000+ years, and to little return (other than spinning the literally minded folks in circles).

[heel31ok]

Yeah, good summary of the issues w/ taking the Bible literally.

You can see sub_zer0 stumble against this during this thread
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46653
where in post #1, he starts out by saying that Christ teaches a literal reading of Genesis, but by post #58, now sub_zer0 says Jesus is talking symbolically about creation, not literarlly. But then in post #70, he's back to literal.
Wow, with this expose you should be on with Dan rather!From those examples we can see that Christ certainly does not wish us to take the account literally. :rolleyes: his subject matter speaks directly against it. :lol: you win :lol: :lol:

[neo of the mind]

Sure - and some folks will chime in that Jesus always says when he's speaking in parables (which He doesn't - for example, the case in Genesis - Jesus doesn't explicitly to take it symbolically, but I don't think there's much confusion (except perhaps to sub_zer0) that He intends it as such. Read in context, Jesus's real point (at least as I take) has to do with the sanctity of marriage, not that we should read Genesis literally.

Cedars had a great post a few months back about how the Bible is a collection of works - poetry, stories, laws, prophecies, etc (I wish I could find it, but didn't have much luck searching for it). When God speaks, it's with many different voices, because different people respond better to different means of teachings.

It often seems like a lot of Christianity has gotten far too focused on the literal words than the underlying message.

Likewise, playing whack-a-mole with the consistency of select passages has been a game played for the past 2000+ years, and to little return (other than spinning the literally minded folks in circles).

What you say is reasonable but I would add two things. God speaks different ways to reach different people, but he doesn't contradict himself. You are correct about the whack-a-mole as well but would add that those playing the game should spend more time in trying to understand the Bible versus trying to tear it down.

[Izdaari]

There is much in Mosaic law, including much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, that is barbaric and primitive by today's standards. But they were instructions to the ancient Hebrews, a particular people at a particular time and place, and not necessarily meant to apply to anyone else. I don't know what purpose that law served, but God did at times issue culturally relative instructions... so much so that you might say God was the first anthopologist.

[sub_zer0]

There is much in Mosaic law, including much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, that is barbaric and primitive by today's standards. But they were instructions to the ancient Hebrews, a particular people at a particular time and place, and not necessarily meant to apply to anyone else. I don't know what purpose that law served, but God did at times issue culturally relative instructions.

The purpose of the law was to show the need for a Savior from it.

[towski]

There is much in Mosaic law, including much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, that is barbaric and primitive by today's standards. But they were instructions to the ancient Hebrews, a particular people at a particular time and place, and not necessarily meant to apply to anyone else. I don't know what purpose that law served, but God did at times issue culturally relative instructions.

So how do we pick and choose which are still culturally relative, and which are hard and fast rules?

[sub_zer0]

So how do we pick and choose which are still culturally relative, and which are hard and fast rules?

The Old is fulfilled in Christ. We follow Christ now, not the Old Law.

[towski]

The Old is fulfilled in Christ. We follow Christ now, not the Old Law.

Then I assume you are not one of those who throws around Leviticus quotes when discussing the rights of homosexuals?

[Izdaari]

So how do we pick and choose which are still culturally relative, and which are hard and fast rules?I can't answer that one for the Jews, who have their own answers depending on which branch of Judaism they follow, but for Christians the New Covenant freed us from the Law, and we need only concern ourselves with following Christ, and becoming, with God's help, as good as we can be.


"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."

-- 1 Corinthians 10:23, KJV

[Alvin T. Grey]

So if all things are lawfull, abut not all things are good, isn't that like pogo-sticking in a minefield. From what I understand form wayyyyyyy back, the only way to God is through choice. You must chose to do right. You can't be blamed for that which you can't chose.
follow me on this......
You must know which is right, and which is wrong in order to select the right path. If you can't do that then what does it matter, you stand a 50-50 chance anyway.

[neo of the mind]

So how do we pick and choose which are still culturally relative, and which are hard and fast rules?

What did Jesus replace? What he didn't replace, would still be valid rules to live by.

[Izdaari]

So if all things are lawfull, abut not all things are good, isn't that like pogo-sticking in a minefield. From what I understand form wayyyyyyy back, the only way to God is through choice. You must chose to do right. You can't be blamed for that which you can't chose.
follow me on this......
You must know which is right, and which is wrong in order to select the right path. If you can't do that then what does it matter, you stand a 50-50 chance anyway.Exactly right, Alvin. God has set it up so you cannot rules lawyer your way into Heaven. We are necessarily all sinners, and cannot possibly become good enough by divine standards. Being good enough by human standards won't do. You cannot earn salvation no matter what you do. You cannot Pharisee your way in. Instead, you must accept salvation as a free gift.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Which brings us back to the question.
If for example a child is born, but dies shortly after, are they not guilty of original sin? They can't chose anyone as their personal saviour.
Also, if I chose Jesus as my saviour, and trust in him, then how do I fiollow, if there are no rules?
Does that mean that there is no free will?

[Izdaari]

Which brings us back to the question.
If for example a child is born, but dies shortly after, are they not guilty of original sin? They can't chose anyone as their personal saviour.I have no answer for that one. Perhaps someone else knows.

Also, if I chose Jesus as my saviour, and trust in him, then how do I fiollow, if there are no rules?
Does that mean that there is no free will?Although following Christ by means of following rules is right out, there is plenty of good advice on how to follow Him, much of it in Paul's letters to the early Christians. No need to worry about "pogo-sticking in a minefield" since once you're justified by the blood of Christ, there is no longer any condemnation.

And yes, we still have free will. Though without hard and fast rules, it's less obvious which choices are good, we still can choose, and some choices are better than others. More expedient, more edifying, as Paul put it.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Thanks Iz. I'll do a little more thinking.

[JoeR]

The purpose of the law was to show the need for a Savior from it.

So the purpose of the law was to not work?

[julierep]

Which brings us back to the question.
If for example a child is born, but dies shortly after, are they not guilty of original sin? They can't chose anyone as their personal saviour.


Christians follow the rule of the age of accountability, which most agree is around 12. Also another rule of thumb, if someone has never heard "the Good News" then they are still accepted by God.

[burntgorilla]

Also another rule of thumb, if someone has never heard "the Good News" then they are still accepted by God.

What's the point of missionaries, then?

[Madrigalian]

Hi folks!

Glad to see this thread progressing, I've gleaned a good deal from everyone.

So far, if I remember correctly, the answers have included;

1. The Bible is reflective of the people and beliefs of the times. (my personal favorite)
2. The specific instructions given aren't actually meant to be followed but are instead an alagory for he said/she said death trials. (nice cop out btw, talk about convenience, when ever something becomes dated or clearly unsustainable it suddenly becomes only a figure of speech.)
3. Don't question. Never Question. Shhhh! (good for guppies, not for men)
4. God miraculously changed women's hymen... most likely around the same time we discovered flossing.
5. It is up to us to decide which parts are literal and which parts are figurative, just so long as we feel good about our conclusions... today. In the mean time, whatever we decide, rest assured, these are God's immutable words. (offer void where Catholics and Prodistants meet)
6. Jesus threw out the old testament, for the New Testament and so we can forgive God's previous ignorance in this regard as it no longer applies to Christians.

All very interesting. Did I miss any?

A couple of other points intrest me as well. The age of accountability? What if I were 17 years old, born in a ***** house along a highway somewhere in Serbia? My mother is a Heroine addict and my father a violent sex slave trader. All I've ever known is hunger, violence, disease, war, famine, sex, drugs and death. Half my friends are Muslim and the other half are Christian. The Christian half doesn't believe in evolution, although I've seen dinosaur bones, and tells me that God and Jesus loves me but will condemn me to hell if I don't believe in them... instead of Mohammed for instance. So, is God seriously intent on holding me accountable for my "faith" one way or another? I'm supposed to base my decision on a book ($9.95 at Target) and someone elses say so?

Nobody else finds this to be just a bit... unrealistic? Expectations just a bit high?

Since I was asked, I will say this much; I do believe in "a" God. Just not the ones who threaten me with eternal damnation based on my "unquestioning faith". I do not believe in a heaven or a hell, nor do I believe Humans to be capable of true good or evil, only in expressing our perceptions of the two. I've expanded on this elsewhere so I wont bore you all with the details here.

And just a side note. I wasn't calling all Christians bible thumpers. I have lots and lots of good, non-bible thumping Christian friends and family. ;) But these boards have seen their fair share of bible thumping zealots recently and they were the people in specific I was attempting to reach. You know who you are. My apologies for the offense to the rest of you guys. None was intended, though I admit it was poor ploy to use. :flowers:

Anyways, gotta head back out again... Blessed be.



> Edit: Oh! Wait I forgot one... 7. God made the platypus... nuff said. :D

[neo of the mind]

"So far, if I remember correctly, the answers have included;"


That's a big thread that you spent a lot of time on. Problem is, your memory is skewed by your predisposition. Your conclusions of what people said are mischaracterizations at best.


I like exaggerated stories though:

"The Christian half doesn't believe in evolution, although I've seen dinosaur bones" - Since when do Dinosaur bones equate to evolution?

[Dangerrmouse]

The point of missionaries.

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. "
Archbishop Desmond Tutu

[neo of the mind]

The point of missionaries.

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. "
Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Maybe Mr. Tutu should read Mark 8:36 again.

[Dangerrmouse]

He's an Archbishop, you tell him.

[neo of the mind]

He's an Archbishop, you tell him.

Why? I have read James 2:1 and Proverbs 24:23.

[Dangerrmouse]

I am sure you believe you are a better person for it, too!

[heel31ok]

The point of missionaries.

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. "
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
If you can't beat them join them.

[Dangerrmouse]

The thieves or the Africans?

[neo of the mind]

The government then took back the land from the "white" settlers and what is the outcome? That's right, thriving farms are now producing squat.

[Dangerrmouse]

The government then took back the land from the "white" settlers and what is the outcome? That's right, thriving farms are now producing squat.

What are you talking about?

[neo of the mind]

What are you talking about?

You referenced Tutu whining about the supposed theft of African land by white Europeans via the conduit of Evangelists, who no doubt, were white European and white Americans at the time. I was just pointing out the fact that the land they settled on was turned into viable and productive farms. The government of the african country took the land from the "white" farmers and gave it back to the Africans. The farms became total failures.

[Dangerrmouse]

Africa is a continent, not a country.

[neo of the mind]

Africa is a continent, not a country.

Did I not say "african country" above? I would think the substance of my comments, being controversial, are sufficient enough to dispute whithout having to look for spelling, grammer or in this case, geographical termimology errors. Sheesh.

[Dangerrmouse]

Archbishop Tutu is a contemporary and friend of Nelson Mandela, from South Africa. Your crass comments refer to Zimbabwe, which is an entirely different country, and is ruled by a dictator, not a "government" Apart from that you are still wrong..... :rolleyes:

[neo of the mind]

Archbishop Tutu is a contemporary and friend of Nelson Mandela, from South Africa. Your crass comments refer to Zimbabwe, which is an entirely different country, and is ruled by a dictator, not a "government" Apart from that you are still wrong..... :rolleyes:

Tutu's comment was about Africa as a whole. A dictatorship is still a form of government. My crass comments refer to Zimbabwe in application but Africa in scope. Apart from that?...what else did I say and what did I say that is wrong?

[Dangerrmouse]

If you don't see a problem with conflating one country with another, then extrapolating on that error to include an entire continent, all in an irrelevant attempt at "rebuttal" of an ironic aside from prominent churchman and world leader, then there seems little point in continuing.

[neo of the mind]

If you don't see a problem with conflating one country with another, then extrapolating on that error to include an entire continent, all in an irrelevant attempt at "rebuttal" of an ironic aside from prominent churchman and world leader, then there seems little point in continuing.

Did I do all that? LOL. Fine with me.

[burntgorilla]

I still want to know why we have missionaries if the people would go to heaven anyway.

[neo of the mind]

I still want to know why we have missionaries if the people would go to heaven anyway.


Well, from a different Christian point of view, I am not certain that those of the age of accountability, that do not hear the gospel, would in fact go to heaven. Hence, the missionaries. God chose this form to spread the message.

[wish]

Well, from a different Christian point of view, I am not certain that those of the age of accountability, that do not hear the gospel, would in fact go to heaven. Hence, the missionaries. God chose this form to spread the message.If God wanted everyone to get the "message", why did he neglect to send down multiple "Jesus" figures to all the remote places in the world 2000 years ago?

[neo of the mind]

If God wanted everyone to get the "message", why did he neglect to send down multiple "Jesus" figures to all the remote places in the world 2000 years ago?


Here is a link with a good discussion on this. http://www.backtothebible.org/broadcasts/radio/today.php/25784?page=1

I would add the following scripture:

Acts 17:16-33

16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

33 So Paul departed from among them.
KJV

[wish]

From backtothebible.org:
So, here Paul is laying out the case for the fact that even people who do not know Jesus—have never heard His name in a saving way—even those people have the witness of all that God has created to tell them that there's more. But they don't want more so they suppress it.

And if they didn't have that, they still have this secret witness inside of them to tell them that there is a God who knows the difference between right and wrong. And, by the way, you do too. And we say, "I don't want to know that" so we katecho. (Love the word?) We katecho; we hold it down; we suppress it. And when we suppress it, God is under no obligation to give us more.

Conversely, and here's the good news: When we don't suppress it, while that little bit of knowledge may not be enough to save us because there's a lot more, listen; pay attention; wait, "I will bring to you the light of the Gospel, if you do not suppress what you already have."
So in essence, all those Polynesians, Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, etc., ALL of them somehow were supposed to be able to look around and "sense" God's existance but they must have "suppressed" this knowledge so God decided not to bother with them? The Hebrews had the OT that had precise and detailed prophecies of Jesus' coming. And even then, a large portion of them didn't believe. What did the rest of the world have? How were they supposed to know? And forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but why no specific mention about all these other people and cultures around the world in the Bible?

Seriously, if you, Neo, were born in a society that had never heard of the Bible or the Judeo/Christian God, do you think that you would somehow be able to look around and KNOW about Jesus and salvation through him without any external help? Isn't that a bit unrealistic?

As for the passage you quoted, it seems rather unfair and tedious for the entire world to have to wait for one group of "chosen" people to get their act together enough to spread the word effectively. Two thousand years later, and there are still remote parts of the world that haven't heard of the bible. And the parts that have heard of it, well, apparently we still haven't reached a "righteous" enough state that God deems us judgement worthy. God is apparently ridiculously inefficient.

[burntgorilla]

Well, from a different Christian point of view, I am not certain that those of the age of accountability, that do not hear the gospel, would in fact go to heaven. Hence, the missionaries. God chose this form to spread the message.

So what about people who haven't heard of Christianity now?

Jesus said to let your faith shine out, don't cover it with a bushel. But Jesus also wants people to go to Heaven. If people go to Heaven if they haven't heard of God, then logically, the best thing for missionaries to do would be to stay at home and tell no-one about God. This directly contradicts with what Jesus said. Since none of you lot will accept that the Bible could possibly be false, then this must mean that people who haven't heard of Jesus et al won't necessarily go to Heaven. So how is it decided who goes to Heaven and who doesn't? They may have worshipped false idols or even sacrificed people, but maybe in their culture this was extremely pious. So what's the answer?

[Dangerrmouse]

Now you are being silly, bg. All these people were all hebrews living in Pangea before they surfed on their continents to where they live now. They should have remembered!

[neo of the mind]

So in essence, all those Polynesians, Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, etc., ALL of them somehow were supposed to be able to look around and "sense" God's existance but they must have "suppressed" this knowledge so God decided not to bother with them? The Hebrews had the OT that had precise and detailed prophecies of Jesus' coming. And even then, a large portion of them didn't believe. What did the rest of the world have? How were they supposed to know? And forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but why no specific mention about all these other people and cultures around the world in the Bible?

Seriously, if you, Neo, were born in a society that had never heard of the Bible or the Judeo/Christian God, do you think that you would somehow be able to look around and KNOW about Jesus and salvation through him without any external help? Isn't that a bit unrealistic?

As for the passage you quoted, it seems rather unfair and tedious for the entire world to have to wait for one group of "chosen" people to get their act together enough to spread the word effectively. Two thousand years later, and there are still remote parts of the world that haven't heard of the bible. And the parts that have heard of it, well, apparently we still haven't reached a "righteous" enough state that God deems us judgement worthy. God is apparently ridiculously inefficient.


...the looking around reference is knowing there is a God, which throughout history, it has been proven that people DO in fact have something that speaks to their core that there is a God, that there is a reason for why everything is. The rest of your comments are addressed further by the author.

[neo of the mind]

So what about people who haven't heard of Christianity now?

Jesus said to let your faith shine out, don't cover it with a bushel. But Jesus also wants people to go to Heaven. If people go to Heaven if they haven't heard of God, then logically, the best thing for missionaries to do would be to stay at home and tell no-one about God. This directly contradicts with what Jesus said. Since none of you lot will accept that the Bible could possibly be false, then this must mean that people who haven't heard of Jesus et al won't necessarily go to Heaven. So how is it decided who goes to Heaven and who doesn't? They may have worshipped false idols or even sacrificed people, but maybe in their culture this was extremely pious. So what's the answer?

If you read my quote, I said I was not certain about this, so my opinion at this time on this is not concrete in my mind. There is plenty of material on the internet that you can read that discusses this, from people that have studied this very issue, I suggest that if you want something more than my uncertain opinion, to go in that direction. You could also wait to see if somebody else has input on this.

[burntgorilla]

If you read my quote, I said I was not certain about this, so my opinion at this time on this is not concrete in my mind. There is plenty of material on the internet that you can read that discusses this, from people that have studied this very issue, I suggest that if you want something more than my uncertain opinion, to go in that direction. You could also wait to see if somebody else has input on this.

It was more of a general question, to be honest. Seems to be a rather important thing to know about, though.

[wish]

...the looking around reference is knowing there is a God, which throughout history, it has been proven that people DO in fact have something that speaks to their core that there is a God, that there is a reason for why everything is.
I understand that. Most cultures have some sort of creation/creator story that attempts to explain this "feeling". But in Christianity, is not enough to know that there is a God. You also have to know and believe in salvation through Jesus. That's what I don't understand: if this is true, how were all those people supposed to know about Jesus? Why did God speak directly only to the Hebrews and not to everyone? Yes, I understand that they were his "chosen people", but why would this perfect, loving, and all powerful God choose favorites at all?

The rest of your comments are addressed further by the author. Not really. The author basically says to wait and eventually God will sort everyone out on Judgement Day. Again, this makes no sense. If God created man in his own image to worship him, why would he go to the trouble of creating the world and universe and all its inhabitants, from a microscopic bacterium to an elephant to man, and only reveal himself to a tiny minority of people in the middle east? Why would he allow all those people to perish without ever being given the chance to know him and choose?

[KatsuhikoJinnai]

The Literal Word does not allow such extramural considerations. Your explanation below is a gloriously imaginative theory, however the implication would be an alteration of the Word of God as recorded in the Bible, the consequence of which is removing the infallibility of the Bible itself.

Ethos

I don't see how my theory would require an alteration of the Word of God. God does not need to tell people that He will supernaturally maintain a virgin's hymen so that it will bleed on her wedding night in order for that act to cover the concern raised by this thread.

[KatsuhikoJinnai]

Hi folks!

Glad to see this thread progressing, I've gleaned a good deal from everyone.

So far, if I remember correctly, the answers have included;

1. The Bible is reflective of the people and beliefs of the times. (my personal favorite)

Of course the Bible is. The Bible's principle audience is, after all, those people contemporary to the time that the Bible was wrote. This is why, for example, the creation account in Genesis is told in a very colourful (or 'layman's terms') form, and not with proper scientific complexity (as we today could describe the Big Bang, and the formation of Earth)... since the Bible's initial audience would not understand a scientific explanation whatsoever.

That is not to say, however, that the Bible is not also meant for us. It most assuredly is.

2. The specific instructions given aren't actually meant to be followed but are instead an alagory for he said/she said death trials. (nice cop out btw, talk about convenience, when ever something becomes dated or clearly unsustainable it suddenly becomes only a figure of speech.)

Actually, I agree with your second point. I really do wish that some of my fellow Christians would stop using this type of argument. It is very likely an incorrect argument, and it also weakens our position.

3. Don't question. Never Question. Shhhh! (good for guppies, not for men)

Questioning is fine. However, it is important to remember that the nature of God is not completely comprehensible by man.

4. God miraculously changed women's hymen... most likely around the same time we discovered flossing.

Which is my answer, and is entirely believeable. Once you posit the existence of God, virtually everything becomes possible.

6. Jesus threw out the old testament, for the New Testament and so we can forgive God's previous ignorance in this regard as it no longer applies to Christians.

Throwing out the Old Testament is unwise. There is no ignorance involved.

All very interesting. Did I miss any?

I do not believe so. While your snarky comments work well with most of the arguments raised to you, they don't really work with my suggestion. If we presuppose the existence of God, then we have to be open to cases of divine intervention, or even divine sustaining.

So, is God seriously intent on holding me accountable for my "faith" one way or another? I'm supposed to base my decision on a book ($9.95 at Target) and someone elses say so?

The monetary value of any book, but especially the Bible, is inconsequential to the discussion. A book can have a priceless influence on people's lives, and hences should not be measured in monetary terms. God is not holding you accountable for your faith as much as He's offering you a gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. As with any gift offerred to you, you can accept it, or you can refuse it. If you don't accept it, you obviously won't gain it (i.e. Heaven). Other faiths promise different afterlife realms to you. If they're right, perhaps you'll gain them if you become part of the faith. If they're wrong, well...

I personally do not believe in a fire and brimstone hell. I believe that when a non-Christian dies, he simply ceases to exist (i.e. the wages of sin is death, not hell). This is somewhat fitting in that this is what the atheists expect to occur when they die anyway...

Nobody else finds this to be just a bit... unrealistic? Expectations just a bit high?

If "eternal torment" was the alternative, I could perhaps see your point. However, I hold that simply ceasing to exist is the alternative. Hence, I don't find this expectation a bit high, or unrealistic. A non-Christian won't suffer anymore than an atheist already believes he will suffer upon his death, is my belief. A non-Christian is not punished so much as s/he doesn't get the gift... because s/he never accepted it.

Since I was asked, I will say this much; I do believe in "a" God. Just not the ones who threaten me with eternal damnation based on my "unquestioning faith".

Well, again, I hold that the fire and brimstone conception of hell is a misconception.

I do not believe in a heaven or a hell, nor do I believe Humans to be capable of true good or evil, ...

So... do you believe in any sort of afterlife?
You do not consider the holocaust truly evil? Interesting...

...only in expressing our perceptions of the two. I've expanded on this elsewhere so I wont bore you all with the details here.

And just a side note. I wasn't calling all Christians bible thumpers. I have lots and lots of good, non-bible thumping Christian friends and family. ;)

The term "Bible thumper" implicitly suggests that there is something wrong with reading, believing, and following, the Bible. Do you, sir, hold that there is something wrong with reading, believing, and following, the Bible?

But these boards have seen their fair share of bible thumping zealots recently and they were the people in specific I was attempting to reach.

Aahhh... so you're attempting to "reach" people. Does this mean that fair, and honest, debate in general doesn't interest you at all?

You know who you are. My apologies for the offense to the rest of you guys. None was intended, though I admit it was poor ploy to use. :flowers:

It's a bigoted ploy to use. Period.
Insofar as the apology is directed to me as well, I accept it.
God bless you.